Social Psychology of 2004 U.S. Election

I got the newest issue of the Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (Vol 5, Issue 1) in the mail today. There is a special feature section called the "Social Psychology of the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election." Two articles from that section look particularly interesting, based on the abstracts. If you're affiliated with a college or university, you can get the online version through your school's subscription.

American Roulette: The Effect of Reminders of Death on Support for George W. Bush in the 2004 Presidential Election

An experiment was conducted to assess the effect of a subtle reminder of death on voting intentions for the 2004 U.S. presidential election. On the basis of terror management theory and previous research, we hypothesized that a mortality salience induction would increase support for President George W. Bush and decrease support for Senator John Kerry. In late September 2004, following a mortality salience or control induction, registered voters were asked which candidate they intended to vote for. In accord with predictions, Senator John Kerry received substantially more votes than George Bush in the control condition, but Bush was favored over Kerry following a reminder of death, suggesting that President Bush’s re-election may have been facilitated by nonconscious concerns about mortality in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

Lies in a Time of Threat: Betrayal Blindness and the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election

Exit polls from the 2004 U.S. presidential election indicated overwhelming support for President Bush among voters who said they valued honesty, even though the Bush administration had been sharply criticized for deceiving the public, especially concerning the reasons for invading Iraq. A psychological theory recently developed to help explain memory loss in trauma survivors sheds light on this paradox. Betrayal Trauma Theory (Freyd, 1996) states that memory impairment is greatest when a victim is dependent on the perpetrator. The theory also predicts who will be “blind” to signs of deception—those who are emotionally or financially dependent on the person who is lying. Although every American is dependent on the U.S. President to some extent, religious conservatives may be more psychologically dependent than others. Because they believe their core values are under attack, they depend on powerful leaders such as President Bush to defend these values. This psychological dependence may make it difficult for them to notice the administration’s deceptions.